- McConaughey Tweets "Long Way from 1971..."
- CARIBBEAN VIEW: Celebrate the CCJ--and Empower It
- Huntington Celebrates Lifetimes of Making Magic
- UPDATING ... How Close will 'It Follows' be to 'Get Hard?'
- SHELLY'S WORLD: The One That Got Away
- Ginseng Harvest Returns as "Appalachian Outlaws"
- BOOK REVIEW: 'Don't Make the Black Kids Angry': More Accounts of Violence in the Wake of 'White Girl Bleed a Lot'
- Gov. Tomblin Announces Transportation Alternatives, Recreational Trails Program Grants
- CIVIL WAR OP-ED: Saint Patrick’s Day Tribute to General Patrick Cleburne—The Fighting Irishman
- Big Bad Vandals Steal Wood, Huntington House Falls
WV Supreme Court Orders New Hearing Regarding Cell Phone Evidence Used in Robbery Conviction
Prior to trial by jury, Clark maintained at a suppression hearing that his constitutional privacy rights had been violated through the subpoena of his cell phone call records. According to the decision, the state’s high court have mandated that Judge Alfred Ferguson conduct an in-depth hearing concerning the procedure(s) used by law enforcement to obtain the records.
At issue, the defendant’s cell phone records were properly obtained under provisions of the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency, which the court has interpreted specifically required an open drug investigation. However, the defendant did reside in an area of the city then widely known for extensive drug activities. But, according to the ruling, the defendant may not have been allowed a sufficient opportunity to challenge the evidence obtained regarding the Sprint cellphone records.
The seriousness of the possible error in allowing the cell phone records to be entered into evidence and heard by the jury could require that a new trial be granted for the defendant --- one in which a new jury would not hear that evidence.
The Court's ruling stated, in part:
“To the extent that the record before us is completely devoid of any development of the issue of whether a drug-related investigation was being conducted, we determine that it is necessary to remand this case to the circuit court for the limited purpose of conducting such proceedings as are necessary for proper factual and legal development to permit the circuit court to enter an order that is adequate for appellate review,” the WV Supreme Court memorandum entered November 13 states.
In a footnote, the justices explain that “If on remand the trial court determines that the DEA did not properly release the information to the local police, then the court must vacate the judgment and grant the Petitioner a new trial. If the trial court upholds its initial ruling denying the motion to suppress, then this Court will enter an appropriate order allowing the parties to supplement their briefs on appeal to assign error based upon the ruling on remand.”
Dustin Shaver, the accomplice, pled guilty to two counts of robbery and testified against Clark. He received a 50 year sentence.
A PDF of the full ruling can be downloaded.
- State of WV v. Clark Memorandum Opinion (71.19 KB)